peterstorm1985

csaddleton Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am certainly no bah humbug but for f$?*s sake > it's earlier every year and it dissolves the magic I like to keep Christmas special so have decided not to buy anything in any shop that puts up Christmas decorations before 1st December.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why not call them back and ask for a free meal + > beers? > > Not sure what else they can do. Sensible advice, although they may be doubtful if they get a stream of callers all prompted by this suggested idea. If you don't give someone the hint as to what you want in recompense it's often difficult for them to realise that that is what you hope for. A staple isn't nice but there are far worse things, and accidents do happen. It isn't indicative of a major failure of cleanliness or something else that would be of ongoing concern for the general public.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies if it has been mentioned before but > wouldn't the best solution be to turn he > LB-Peckham-ED-TulseHill line into an Overground > line and run trains every 5 mins. > > Wouldn't that keep all the people can't remember > the timetable happy? Although the Sunday timetable > is weak - it has to be said. Everyone in ED would be happy but I'm not sure about all the other bits of South London who will have to lose services in order to provide the platform space at LB and, more importantly, the track availability at the cross over points. There has been a lot of 'unravelling of spaghetti' in terms of what routes use what bits of track but a quick view of Google Earth and you can see why at least one major construction project is needed for an underpass before such a frequent service could be a possibility.

womanofdulwich, it would be interesting to know which polytechnic you attended as yours may have been one that was purely vocational and that may be why you see such a difference. I attended a university (that gained its charter in the 1960s) and there were academic courses, some with as little as 5 hours teaching per week, and the only costs involved were the lecturers for those few hours and books in the library. But there were also vocational courses with timetabled hours up to 35 hours per week. It was very clear that the cost of running the vocational degrees was much higher. As well as the extended teaching hours there were also the additional costs of buildings for laboratories and equipment required, e.g. engineering, science. However, there was a lot of technical research being carried out for corporations using those same buildings/equipment and I understood that that pumped money back into the system. When I applied to university I did consider certain polytechnics that had a reputation for equivalence with universities from an employer's perspective - these included Hatfield, City and Portsmouth - and the course content was not significantly different other than being slightly narrower and a little more focused on specific areas of industry. I also remember friends studying drama and English Lit at polytechnics so I don't think this is such a simple comparison.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So I presume more people would be made unemployed > by this thus money would have to be spent > supporting them and their families? Correct me if > I'm wrong. > > Edited to add that of course this would create > jobs so people could monitor the unemployed and > make sure they are not claiming benefits they > shouldn't be. Absolutely agree Narnia. Road sweeping is a very low paid job so the saving to the taxpayer in overall cost between someone working or not working (they are unlikely to find work in the private sector at present) is insignificant so lets keep them in work. Make cuts of middle or high earners in council services, not at the bottom

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why presume ? Because it's been around for a while but still current and it came up so easily on a Google search. Nero asked James for info. I had a moment to spare so looked it up, but I didn't want to appear to be doubting Nero's internet search capabilities by offering something that might be common knowledge. I suppose I should have said "everyone who is interested". I'm not that interested which is why I hadn't looked for the information previously, so it was new to me.

I think you should go back to him and point out that muggers get ever braver in the amount of violence they use at each attempt. His reporting it could prevent an escalation. I expect he would be upset if he later heard that someone had been seriously hurt by a mugger of a description matching his, and that reporting the attack on him could have prevented it.

I presume everyone has read this Bakerloo extension paper

I'm not really sure why it would be any cheaper. When the polytechnics became universities they didn't suddenly start doing masses of academic research as far as I know (I stand to be corrected). Some academic research is funded by the private sector (or charitable external funding) so it can actually bring in money rather than the other way round.

Youtube opportunity. Then send the link to the gas company

I travelled from ED to Hornsey on Sunday (North of Harringay). I caught the 12:37 at ED and got off at Hornsey at 13:35. The whole journey was on a train. OK I had to change at LB and St Pancras but there was no bus, no tube. We're not that cut off.

Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes - and for very good reasons; they are not Tube > equivalents for several reasons. The key one is > that they do not go to central London. > > It always amazes me how people don't get this. ELL > and DLR are not a substitute for the Tube in terms > of access to central London - and that remains > where most, not all of course, people want to go. I think I'd like a bit of clarity here as to the definition of "Central London", as in the place that you think that most people want to go. There are an awful lot of people who work in the City for whom London Bridge does just fine. The underground is a big network and a lot of it takes people from place A to place B where place B is not Central London. The underground is just one of many forms of transport. It makes a lot of sense to provide an underground to go under densely built areas but none at all where there is fresh air above ground that will accommodate another form of transport. Why do so many people have such a fixation on the tube? Have none of you lived in the vast areas of North London that are supposedly within the tube network but you have to walk miles to get to it - without any bus service to interconnect. From ED you can get to LB in no time at all. For Victoria either change at Peckham Rye or walk to Denmark Hill. Plenty of tube journeys involve a number of changes. It's not that hard to connect to the tube at LB. Before Oyster cards were invented I could see your point, but not any more. Rant over.

We can but hope that the toothlessness is only similar to not putting in your dentures (no I haven't got there yet). If you see something you want to eat then put in the snappers and have a bite, the rest of the time leave them in the glass. So if there is a dangerous dog that needs dealing with, breach of orders for minor offences might provide for the restraint of the animal prior to anything dangerous happening.

Am I the only one confused about how much budget DKKillaQueen is quoting. "Fiona Colley said it was around 3.2 per annum" "On 23 February 2010 council assembly set a balanced general fund revenue budget of ?320m" One is 100 times the other Then James says it is is ?1,500, which is 50 times more again. I've just checked the Southwark budget book and it does says ?320M so the dog warden calculation would come to 0.077% of the revenue budget not 7%

Good idea about the stocks computedshorty, but were you intending to put the owners or the dogs in them?

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Locally The Shard will > create 15,000 jobs. As part of the permission to > build it a jobs package was agreed three years ago > and the next major tranche of ?4.4M was released > by the last planning committee. I am always perplexed when I see statements like this. How will it create 15,000 jobs? And will those 15,000 jobs not simply mean a reduction by the same amount somewhere else? The chances are that many of those who take up jobs generated by the Shard will simply be moving on from another very local job and the job they leave may not be refilled. More detail please on how these jobs will actually be new jobs that take people out of unemployment and not result in a job disappearing elsewhere.

James, do you have details of the expected return on the sale of the buildings, the current annual running costs, the number of staff who use the buildings on a daily basis? It would be good to be able to understand if there is a sensible efficiency to be gained by relocating to more cost effective premises - I don't have any idea if they are being fully utilised at present, perhaps there is no need to replace on a room by room basis - or if this is just a political move. For my own part I have no need of an iconic symbol of democracy, so I have no immediate concerns about these buildings being sold - but I would like more information on the cost calculations that have been done to justified this.

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > anonymous_third_part Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > train to elephant and castle then bakerloo line > - > > quickest and easiest > > From what station? None from ED. > Get on a train at ED, change at Peckham Rye.

Alex K Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Let us hope that none of US has anything so > shameful to hide. Yes, I mean Midlands origin. > For Heaven's sake, what did you think I meant? Midlands? Racist comment without doubt.

hadenuff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't matter whether the person is Blue, Purple, > Green or any other pantone colour... They are > theives. Good on the shop-keeper. Agree absolutely. Racism exists only where one person is treated differently from another because of their skin colour/ethnicity etc. Unless there is any evidence that the shopkeeper only shows photographs of thieves of a particular ethnic origin then there is no racism whatsoever.

Jennys - you're not a spoilsport. If there is no pumpkin in the window then there is no invite to partake in this Pagan festival. Eggs thrown at your windows are simply vandalism if a trick wasn't invited, and a terrible waste of food. And I bet they weren't free range.

AcedOut Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice tip on Charing Cross trains. I had never > considered that in 5 years of living here! I worked in Covent Garden and took the train journey to Charing Cross every day - just a few minutes walk from the station, and you don't pay extra for the hop from LB. Just as we were moving offices I bumped into a fellow ED resident who'd been catching the tube from LB to get to the office. More money and much longer (+sweatier unpleasant). I think the word 'gutted' was the only appropriate one.

untamedstylist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > can anyone reccomend areas with a tube as nice as > ED and as relatively cheap to rent much with only > 20 mins to get into central? The reason we can all afford to live here is there is no tube. Why anyone wants to descend into a stinky sweaty hole to get to work when, as you say, it's only a 12 minute train journey to LB, is beyond me. There will never be an underground that's actually under the ground because of the geology - there are old threads about this.

goldfinger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > . My restaurant would > provide all produce straight from Napoli. Recipes from Napoli would be great but if all the produce comes all the way from Napoli I'd avoid your restaurant. Please keep produce as local as possible.

We all have bad days - it sounds as though the binmen did today but posting on this forum won't get it sorted. Take a photo, send it to Southwark at environment@southwark.gov.uk Then they'll know what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again.